Tuesday, March 14, 2017

The Issues of Culture and Demographics won’t Go Away

But finally people are starting to talk about it, even in the mainstream media:

Steve King is correct that multiculturalism and diversity are not strengths, as anyone can see from the evidence here.

As for the ethnic issue, even on this subject, conservative Republicans can’t even state the obvious: would it be acceptable for native Africans to be demographically replaced by white Europeans assimilated into African cultures and speaking native African languages?

Would it be acceptable for native Chinese, Japanese, South Asians, and Arabs to be demographically replaced by white Europeans assimilated into these respective cultures and speaking the native languages of China, Japan, South Asia and the Middle East? We would then have a world where ethnic Africans, Chinese, Japanese, South Asians, and Arabs have disappeared, and been replaced by white Europeans, even if they were assimilated Europeans. Diversity – which is supposedly so beloved by the Left – would have actually significantly decreased in the world.

The answer to these questions is: no, it’s not acceptable to just demographically replace native Africans, Chinese, Japanese, South Asians, etc. with assimilated Europeans.

It’s an outrageous – and even an evil – idea. E.g., native Africans have a right to their historic homelands in Africa, which should remain majority homelands for the African people and culture of those people. The same applies to Europe and any other region or people.

20 comments:

honestly if the immigrants are fully accepting the culture values and language of my country (fully where the only difference is their looks) and their migration is not causing economic problems for the local population i would have no problems with them at all.

I agree 100%, brother Marmur. I would only point out that the Eastern and Southern European immigrants to the US refused to learn the language or accept the cultural values of this country in a way that is not comparable to current Muslim and African immigrants coming to the US. Mexicans, on the other hand, are much more parallel to those European immigrant groups from a century ago; I believe you've made this point about Mexicans to Kevin and myself in previous discussions.

LK, doesn't the issue with immigration and diversity go deeper than simply "Europe is for Europeans, Africa is for Africans?" Are British and Ukranian cultures really that similar? What about Igbo and Boruni culture? You and other commentators have pointed out that there are also issues in the UK with Polish and other European immigrant groups, which suggests that being European doesn't exactly make you compatible with British culture, and have also noted that the children of Nigerian immigrants often test better than native born Brits. The US has had similar issues with eastern and southern Europeans who refused to assimilate, refused learn the language, and brought criminality in the late 19th and early 20th century. Going by educational and socio-economic metrics, Muslim and African immigrants to the United States today do much better than the southern and eastern european immigrants from a century ago; in fact, since the late 70's, the US department of labor statistics indicates that the most educated and well off immigrants coming to the US are from Africa, not Europe or Asia. Doesn't that complicate the view regarding continent of origin and ability to assimilate into the dominant culture of a developed western state?

That there are people with an unhealthy obsession with race is not in dispute.

"Who gives a damn what people look like? That's so primitive."

But it's not simply about what people "look like" or skin colour. This is just a feeble and lazy evasion of the issue.

This is about people's desire and right to exist in lands that are their historical homelands, and their right to live in a society where they feel at home and where their children are genetically related to them. This is biological. What healthy human group wants to just die out?

Does any sane person really think that, say, the native people of Africa would want to just die out and be demographically replaced by Chinese people who speak African languages and carry on African culture ideas??

Imagine if you went to Israel 100 years from now and suddenly saw no people with any genetic relationship to the modern Jewish people – but only Chinese people speaking Hebrew and practising Judaism? Wouldn’t you be incredibly shocked? Wouldn’t you think most modern Jewish people would vehemently object to such a fate?

(1) Because races have interbred all throughout history -- which is why race is such a vague category. Look at the average Jew 100 years ago and look at them today. Very different.

(2) Interbreeding does not, in contrast to what liberal propaganda will tell you, result in a giant homogenous blob or unirace. In fact it generates more difference and... I'm not a fan of the word... but, diversity.

(3) Interbreeding is genetically positive. Inbreeding generates defects and, frankly, ugly people. Interbreeding shares immuno-resistances together with the stronger physical traits of the various races. Interbred people are also more physically attractive. You don't even need the science on that. Just look at contemporary pop stars and fashion models.

(4) If you sectioned off all their races in the places of birth you would eventually start generating genetic defects. This is extremely obvious.

Again, it is culture that matters, not race. Too much cultural diversity results in cultural collapse or warring cultures. But you can literally never have enough genetic diversity. The problem is reconciling the two.

Even if I grant you everything you just said, you haven't answered the questions, though.

This seems very strange, Illusionist. You (apparently) have disavowed Cultural Leftism, but you can't break free of a very major piece of Cultural Leftist nonsense.

Do you really think most Africans are 100% fine with demographic extinction, even if their culture where to be carried on by blonde, blue-eyed Europeans? It doesn't matter that you -- personally, with decades of multicultural indoctrination -- think there is no problem here: do most normal African people agree with you? If you think so, what is your evidence, given, say, this:

And also race isn't even necessarily the issue here: imagine Denmark and Russia. The native Danish and native Russians are both white Caucasian Europeans (same race). Nevertheless most Danes do not want 20 million white Russians coming into Denmark with higher birth rates and causing ethnic Danes to disappear from the world.

Really, dude. This is not about "racism" or "hatred": this is about a straightforward fact of human psychology and human nature, which needs to be just acknowledged.

Whether you think massive demographic movement and replacement is good or not, any sane person can see it is against human nature and will not work, except to result in horrendous suffering and disaster. just like utopian Communism.

In a morally consistent and perfect world, yes, but that would also require other massive population movements too, e.g., descendants of medieval Turks in Turkey would have to go back to Central Asia, and descendants of medieval Arabs who conquered North Africa would have to go back to the Arabian peninsula. Ethnic Chinese in Taiwan would have to go back to the mainland.

In practice, the population movements would be so large and disruptive this cannot be reasonably be possible.

However, some might argue that the small minority of whites in Africa might realistically be able return to Europe peacefully, if this is a peaceful democratic decision of sovereign African governments.

In any case, why not answer the question:

Would it be acceptable for native Chinese, Japanese, South Asians, and Arabs to be demographically replaced by white Europeans assimilated into these respective cultures and speaking the native languages of China, Japan, South Asia and the Middle East?

"Would it be acceptable for native Chinese, Japanese, South Asians, and Arabs to be demographically replaced by white Europeans assimilated into these respective cultures and speaking the native languages of China, Japan, South Asia and the Middle East?"

I think for the "progressive" left national cultures and national identities are a problem they wish they didn't have to deal with. They would not call it replacement of those people. In their eyes they are just people and if other people want to move there, then let it happen. National identies and national cultures are not something the modern "progressive" left likes very much at all. That is exactly what the eurphiles are after in EU too. Clearly nation states are an obstacle in the way of what they want to achieve. If Greece would be a state in Germany then the Germans would not ne against paying its debts. So clearly nationalism is the problem. Guy Verhofstadt is saying that one day we might be ready for world government but right now we need European government. Most of the bigwigs in Brussels think like that even though they might not publicly say It. The only failure they see in EU is that It doesn't have enough power over national member state governments. Your question is naive in their eyes, that's not how the world future will look like. There is no place for nation states because all these nations like Germany and France are too small in globalising world to be anything important or relevant. https://www.amazon.com/Europe-Guy-Verhofstadt/dp/1479261882

He and his ideas are highly regarded in EU, so this is what these maniacs want. It is not some regressive left nut cases. This thing is pushed from very high up.

We cannot but agree with the weaker interpretation of your argument LK : populations are entitled to their homeland. But here comes the part conservatives (and most pro-globalisation liberals) will not acknowledge : this implies that trade policies should aim at keeping each and every nation a decent place to live ine.For instance, it would imply not to destroy what little agriculture and industry poor lands do have. So a honest, decent anti-immigration position needs to encompass trade restriction and compensations for the harms done to the weakest nations.I don't see it coming...

I gave some thoughts to your argument about colour and I think that it is resting on the same kind of error that makes most people reject consequentialism in words even though they are consequentialist whenever it comes to serious matters.I think that the error is this : when you say people who would not look like the nowadays inhabitants of some land but would be all akin to them culturally it is very hard to picture it. For that reason, we instinctively suspect that it would actually mean the end of that culture as we know it. So out of some kind of prudence we are inclined to object to the population substitution without cultural death for we suspect that in fact it is not possible to have the former without the latter.I think it is the same trick with consequentialism when you ask people : "should we judge an action mainly on its foreseeable consequences?" or more crudely "Does the end justify the means?" they are inclined to answer "no".Not because they really stick a more stringent ethics (say kantian or pure evangelical etc.) but because they fear that answering "yes" would make a lot of evil deeds appear morally sound. The ruling ones use to cover up whatever they see usefull to them by invoking things like "higher end" "common good" or "la raison d'Etat" so that ordinary people are usually not very confident about those arguments in general.The same goes on for your thoughtexperiment : we cannot help but picture some politician trying to convince us that mass immigration is no threat to our culture and thus feel compelled to answer "no".Or may be I got something wrong ?